[EM] Oops! IRV.
davek at clarityconnect.com
Sat Apr 14 16:13:12 PDT 2012
I choke when I see IRV called "fine" - it too easily ignores parts of
what the voters say. For example, look at what can happen with A
being much liked, yet IRV not always noticing:
Condorcet would see A elected by 62 votes (plus, perhaps, Joe's
63rd). IRV would be affected by Joe's vote:
. A - 63 votes with B and C discarded.
. B - 22 for C after 20A and 21B&20A discarded.
. C - 23 votes with A and B discarded.
On Apr 14, 2012, at 3:51 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
> I said:
> "With an electorate that doesn't need FBC, and who are clear and
> with themselves about
> what they consider to be acceptable--that's when and how FBC can be a
> fine method.
> "...because it is entirely defection-proof, and because it meets the
> Mutual Majority Criterion."
> Of couse, when I said "FBC" the 2nd time, near he end of that 1st
> paragraph, I meant "IRV".
> Mike Ossipoff
More information about the Election-Methods